No there wasn't. HuffPo is intentionally beating a dead horse to drive a wedge between idiots on the left and idiots on the right. Everyone else is not going to care. Idiots will be up in arms. Meanwhile chicken sales will rise due to stupid ads like this one.

They don't. So really, if you were boycotting for political reasons, then you kinda want to support them again for "making the right decision" or else future businesses don't really have incentives to listen to political complaints.

Plus even when they were "against" gay rights, they were against them in the most benign, inoffensive way possible, that also aligned with other virtues they had. Motherfucker, if we want to have positive discourse in this country, how about we allow people to hold dissenting views as long as they do so in peaceful, non-violent, non-confrontational ways?

This is mostly the case, but there have been some exceptions since they promised to clean things up. At least as of a 2015 filing, which is a few years after the point they supposedly stopped that kind of thing. Granted I'm guessing that they weren't really aware of that groups Anti-LGBQT stance on things, and it is pretty damn minor compared to the hate groups that Chik-fil-A used to support.

I doubt the social backlash that pushed them to try to change their image has actually changed the minds of the owners either, so I'll happily continue to boycott a company that benefits bigots, who likely funnel their personal wealth from Chik-fil-A into organizations I'd find objectionable.

Of course I also don't like their food, so that makes my decision pretty easy. I'd probably be a big ol' hypocrite about it all if some fast food chain I liked, like the hot mess, but I don't care what anyone says, still delicious Taco Bell.

Yeeeaaah, unless Chick-Fil-A employees are going around denying service to gay people or voting against laws getting passed in their favor, I'mma have to get back to you while I finish my 8-piece combo.

I’m gay and I never eat and Chik Fil A. We as a community actually take this very seriously. The executives of Chik Fil A donated massive sums of money to organizations who fought against marriage equality precisely during the time that it was being debated in court. Chik Fil A took a public stance against gay marriage, and they saw increased sales because of it. Americans overwhelmingly chose to reward Chik Fil A for being against gay marriage rather than refuse to eat there. If gay marriage wasn’t legalized in 2011, Chik Fil A would have influenced that outcome using money you gave them.

Eat wherever you want but don’t act like the lgbt community is being unreasonable by refusing to eat at Chik Fil A. They still donate to political organizations that are against marriage equality among many other unethical stances. In their mission statement they emphasize that their goal is to “glorify God”.

I really don’t give a rat’s taint how good their chicken is. Chik Fil A is run by hard right conservative fundamentalist Christians and I refuse to give them any of my money. There’s a McDonald’s right next to the Chik Fil A near my college campus. McDonalds never did me wrong.

Yeah, you speak for people who didn't ask for people to be spoken for. Good job claiming you understand the minds of every gay person on Earth. Also, you prose Chik Fil A as if it were a sentient being and not a company.

Somewhat tangential question here, but why do you identify yourself based on your sexual preferences?

I see sexual attractions as incidental or 'additional' characteristic, not a defining feature of 'who I am'. This is especially so since sexual behavior is a choice -- i.e. I can choose whether to act on or ignore a sexual attraction -- in which case my sexual attraction is irrelevant to matters at hand and as far as others are concerned doesn't even exist.

Not OP, but I would venture to say that it’s because the “outside world” has labeled gay people, and really any minority, based on the one quality that makes them “different” from white, straight, cis people.

It becomes a central focus of someone’s life rather than just an additional characteristic because when other people consistently make it that for you. If people constantly assume things about you/judge you based on this one quality, it becomes a main focal point of your identity, whether you like it or not.

If being gay wasn’t a source of being teased, other-ized, and sometimes even violently brutalized, it wouldn’t be such an impactful quality. Also, banning together with other people that have experienced the same thing and creating a “community” garners strength and feeling like you belong/someone understands you and what you’ve gone through as someone who has been labeled.

Does that make sense? I think it’s a fair question you have, and hard to understand for someone who hasn’t experienced it. Asking these questions is how people come together and understand each other better.

If everyone didn’t assume I was straight than being gay wouldn’t have to be a part of my identity. If everyone just assumed anyone could be gay until they learned otherwise, then I wouldn’t have to present my label as a “gay man”

But straight people don’t think like that. I don’t mean this to be antagonizing it’s just true. They can’t help it. Straight people assume I’m straight until I tell them otherwise. Because I play ice hockey and don’t have a lisp.

So until it becomes a social norm for people not to assume other people’s sexuality, the people that don’t have society’s “default sexuality” really have no choice but to integrate their “abnormal sexuality” into their identity.

idk man. 4~6% of the developed nation populations self-report being gay.

Asians are about the same demographic share in America. If I picked a random person out of a list of all people in America, you can't expect me to expect to be holding the name of an Asian person. I have to assume it will be one of the other 94%.

I understand that it causes you pain to not be typical but atypical does not mean abnormal. Being gay is not numerically typical as a proportion of the population.

Humans are kind of base needs and need two Fs which define us Fucking and Food (and Faith as a catchall term for religions and superstitions) so we generally assume things about people on those areas.

If everyone didn’t assume I was straight than being gay wouldn’t have to be a part of my identity. If everyone just assumed anyone could be gay until they learned otherwise, then I wouldn’t have to present my label as a “gay man”

Dude, 2016 exit polls show that about 4% of the population identifies as LGBT. 4%. Extrapolate that over the entire population and we have 1.3 million members of the LGBT community.

In 2013, 1.5 million people reported to have used cocaine during the year. Almost 6 million abused prescription medications in the same year.

Any given person you meet is more likely to abuse prescription opiods than be gay, but you don't get upset at people for assuming that you're not popping pills. Why?

But straight people don’t think like that. I don’t mean this to be antagonizing it’s just true. They can’t help it. Straight people assume I’m straight until I tell them otherwise. Because I play ice hockey and don’t have a lisp.

Or, because, again, 96% of people aren't gay. My brother is gay. He doesn't play sports, but he too has no lisp. I wasn't exactly shocked when he came out to me, but to say I expected it would be a lie.

My brother. My best friend. The man I shared a room with for 15 years, was gay. Am I some bad brother for not knowing he was gay, and this assuming otherwise? No. I merely referenced past experiences when interacting with people.

I've known 4 gay people in my life: my brother, my dad's best friend, and 2 high school acquaintances. I'm sorry that these perfectly innocuous experiences lead me to assume that nearly everyone I interact with isn't gay. All but 4 of them so far haven't been.

So until it becomes a social norm for people not to assume other people’s sexuality, the people that don’t have society’s “default sexuality” really have no choice but to integrate their “abnormal sexuality” into their identity.

... but why? I really don't get it. You're simply attracted to men. What tangible benefits are you getting from doing this?

This "almost" gets us on the same page ... I can understand telling people your sexual preferences for the sake of conversation and getting to know someone, but this is different from self-identifying with a social movement. There is something else that is encouraging you to join a movement and identify yourself with a group. Otherwise you'd just be a guy who likes guys.

Uh... I am a guy who likes guys. I’m gay. That oroginal user was asking why I feel the need to include my sexuality as such a vital part of my identity.

And honestly everyone in this comment section isn’t understanding me at all. And I can’t expect you to, since you really have no way of knowing what it’s like to be gay.

But it’s really hard to just be like “yeah I’m a guy who likes guys no big deal” when I had to admit to my parents at 14 with tears in my eyes that my friends don’t want to be my friends anymore because I came out to my 8th grade class. And then they were mad at me because I embarassed them since parents asked my parents about it and they brushed it off as a rumor. And then they told me I’m just confused and they really don’t think I’m gay for several years.

It was such a huge deal and such a massive development in my life. It really offends me to hear people rail on me for including that I’m gay in my identity. Like the whole world is so equal and accepting now. It’s really not... It’s getting there. But it’s just not there yet.

Well, I'm sorry to hear of your childhood trauma. I was also reduced to tears (I actually burst out sobbing in the hallway before the teacher had shut the door to ask me what had happened), for a different reason. Had trouble making friends for different reasons. But we have to move past our painful childhoods -- kids are generally jerks.

I say and ask what I have previously in part because, basically, Christians think key to overcoming temptations to masturbation and sodomy is to stop 'internalizing' the attractions as an identity, as 'who you are' -- they say you're male or female (or intersex), and that sexual behavior and sexual feelings are not 'core' attributes like eye color, race, or sex. There are no 'straight' or 'gay' people: Just people.

Moreover, I think 'group identity politics' is generally toxic, as stuff gets categorized, conceptualized, and abstracted as being about 'groups' and then people take personal offense to things that aren't about them personally.

Okay usually now is the point where I get too angry and just curse the other user out for being so insensetive but I think you legitimately don’t understand how ignorant some of the stuff you just said is.

I shared my coming out story to you to put into perspective how monumentally being gay has affected me personally and your response was simply “So? I got sad when I was a kid too. Get over it.”

Do you really think you being sad in middle school for some unnamed reason is equal to me losing friends and being ridiculed by my parents for literally being me? You just brushed off what I told you as regular ol’ childhood stuff that I should just be over already. My parents insisted I was straight for years. And I believed them. I had girlfriends in high school and even in the beginning of college. Just embarassing myself in the bedroom over and over again to entertain my parent’s theories. This is a huge part of my life and you getting bullied as a kid for being socially awkward is not comparable at all. If you actually feel that way then you truly have no frame of reference towards gay people and really shouldn’t be diacussing our problems so openly like you understand them.

And you think “group identity politics” are toxic?

y’know lgbt people didn’t form a group just to make people like you feel uncomfortable. We did it because the whole world saw us as diseased pedophile heathens. We are a marginalized people and if we don’t group together it would still be illegal for us to marry each other. We weren’t just given rights you know. Americans fought hard to deny us that.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by this, either. Were you trying to fornicate with women because you thought there was an obligation to do so?

shouldn’t be diacussing our problems so openly

I don't know what you mean by this, either.

And you think “group identity politics” are toxic?

I don't know what you mean to imply here, either. Yes, I think whenever the individual is ignored or suppressed, bad things result. 'Group identity politics' ignores and misrepresents the individual in order to abstract about supposed groups.

Ugh. -_- I hate them so much I honestly have trouble not thinking poorly of people who read their content.

... reading a bit of the article (to be fair), I mean, fine: If you are offended by the fact that they're Christian, you're free to boycott them (and to dialogue with them). But trying to present an extreme dichotomy asserting there is no middle ground (especially when there is one) is just stupid.

Yeah, I don't know at what point it got so bad or if it was always so bad, I stopped reading it. My main criterion is this: would I feel comfortable using this as a source to argue with a conservative. That means it has to be empirically-based and relatively free of emotionally-laden writing and claims. HuffPo doesn't make the cut.

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

I appreciate the effort, but that seems like a pretty shitty "middle ground"

f you are offended by the fact that they're Christian, you're free to boycott them (and to dialogue with them).

Nobody's offended by them being Christians, I don't know where people come up with this language. That they support hate groups and "kill the gays" laws overseas though, is a pretty fucking good reason to go somewhere else.

I didn't know about hate groups and death laws, though. Citation? and I couldn't care less what the "Southern Poverty Law Hate Center" calls a hate group -- anyone who disagrees with them they call a hate group. I'm pretty sure they call anyone who opposes sodomy a 'hate group'.

These people don’t care about facts. They would much rather act like aggrieved Christian victims then realize their monetary support to anti gay causes is not acceptable just because chicken nuggets taste good. Everyone knows exactly where Chick Fil A money goes and there’s no defending it.

Of course, they’re allowed to eat wherever they please. But the victim mentality they exhibit when they can’t hide from the reality of the situation that their money is being used to hurt people they claim to have nothing against is pathetic. This thread shows they know what they’re doing and they don’t care. It has nothing to do with Christians and everything to do with being terrible people.

Early Christians were persecuted by the Romans for a few hundred years. Nowadays it's the major religion in the world and still holds a stranglehold of ~83% of Americans but there are still those Christians that want, very very badly, to be persecuted. They want to be those early martyrs. The dude you're responding to is one of them.

I'm confused....idt ppl care that they're Christian....that's not whats being boycotted. The owner and company has basically taken a firm stance against the LGBT community, openly opposing gay marriage, and funding multiple groups known to be hostile towards LGBT, and promoting anti-lgbt laws.

About 5 years ago, when the world at large first heard about the horrors of Chick-fil-a (/s) I dug into the story and found that basically, the entire story was one of the many charities that they donate to, in part, had a camp or something going where gay Christians could go to try to be "cured".

In other words, is this fair?

The owner and company has basically taken a firm stance against the LGBT community, openly opposing gay marriage, and funding multiple groups known to be hostile towards LGBT, and promoting anti-lgbt laws.

Have they ratcheted up their anti-gay intensity since the negative publicity first broke, or is the story just growing on it's own?

Look...They've definitely scaled back, the owner has basically said hell leave these discussions to the politicians. My original argument is more based on OPs comment claiming that they are being boycotted for being Christian. Thats just not true. Are people overreacting to things that have mostly been put to sleep? yes. Is this story growing kind of out of nowhere? yes.

However, I dont think theyre completely innocent just because theyve stayed out of the news. If the owner still has that personal stance, and is still making financial decisions/donations based on that controversial stance, I have no problem with people boycotting his restaurants on that basis.

"While the company’s non-profit arms scaled back support for some of the groups that actively push an anti-gay agenda, the Chick-fil-A Foundation’s most recent IRS filings show it gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-LGBTQ organizations in 2015. Though its website’s FAQ claims the foundation “is focused on helping every child become all they were created to be,” its donations went to groups that do not believe this includes LGBTQ youth.

For example, the Chick-fil-A Foundation gave more than $1 million in 2015 (nearly one-sixth of its total grants) to the the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. The religious organization, which seeks to utilize athletes and coaches to spread Christian teachings, imparts a strongly anti-LGBTQ message. Staff and volunteers with the organization have been required to adhere to a strict “sexual purity” policy, prohibiting any “homosexual acts,” even for married couples. The group takes the view that, “The Bible is clear in teaching on sexual sin including sex outside of marriage and homosexual acts. Neither heterosexual sex outside of marriage nor any homosexual act constitute an alternative lifestyle acceptable to God.”

The foundation also gave more than $200,000 to the Paul Anderson Youth Home, a Georgia-based “transformative organization” that operates a “Christian residential home for troubled youth.” Focusing on boys, their teachings include the idea that the “sexual, physical, and mental abuse of children, mostly in the alleged ‘safety’ of their own homes has produced all kinds of evil throughout the culture to include the explosion of homosexuality in the last century.” The myth that people are LGBTQ due to abuse is a claim frequently made by anti-LGBTQ organizations to promote harmful “ex-gay” therapy."

The first paragraph is just editorializing with no facts to back it up.

The second paragraph is a description of a volunteer organization in which volunteers are asked to adhere to a code of conduct. You'll have to point to the victim here because I don't see one.

The third paragraph seems to try pretty hard to paint the boys home as a covert anti-gay conversion center boogeyman, but I would be interested to know honestly what the reasons for each resident being there. A Christian shelter for kids who have shitty home lives is pretty damn likely. One can't just latch on to (uncited) quotations and then assume that gay conversion is the point of the place.

It's actually pretty ridiculous to believe that such a place could fly under the radar in this era, really.

That is being Christian, i.e. traditional Christian orthodoxy (i.e. opposing sodomy, masturbation, fornication). Legitimizing sodomy/masturbation by referring to it as marriage is not a Christian position (i.e. all those who call themselves Christians who hold this position are heterodox).

Well, basically, some are in line with Church teaching (it is not an endorsement of masturbation or sodomy, but rather is about loving people); others are too ambiguous (still probably in agreement) so as to be misunderstood by others who don't understand the context for them.

Basically, Pope Francis is terrible with his comments to the press, because he often makes ambiguous statements that are easy for others to misinterpret.

I would say ultimately he is representing what the Church has always taught: masturbation and sodomy are wrong, and so is shunning and hating people. 1 John 4, for example, says that anyone who says he loves God but hates his brother (or neighbor) is a liar.

The official Vatican site says that there's nothing wrong about being gay, but that they're called to chastity. i.e. be as gay as you want, except don't actually have sex with someone of the same sex. That's probably what "we'll have to look at each Union separately" means - thumbs up if you're living together in abstinence, thumbs down if you sleep with each other.

Yes and no; that is not quite correct: There is nothing "gay" about an intimate friendship with someone of the same sex (cf. David and Jonathan in the Bible). This is a question of human anthropology and the falseness of modern sociological/psychological constructs. There is no need to think that living with another man with close friendship is "being gay"; that's just a label modern sociologists like to use to simplify their model of reality.

But yes, sodomy and masturbation are sins; being tempted by a lustful thought to commit sodomy or masturbation is not a sin. (Entertaining, i.e. relishing the thought, actively fantasizing, is, however.)

I have no idea where your first paragraph came from - I didn't state any opinions, I just cited the vatican, and there's nothing there about being friends with other guys having something to do with homosexuality.

Honestly, the company as a whole is pretty impressive,; they open and give free food to people in emergencies, even on Sundays when they are otherwise traditionally closed (because Christian), they seem to value their employees from what I know of people in the fast food industry (veteran who escaped from McD's here), and they don't discriminate against either their employees, their clientele, or franchisees. If the owners choose to take the money they earned and give it to some groups I don't agree with, well... isn't that their right as Americans? To choose how to spend their own income? I get that's why some people boycott the company, but, you are ultimately hurting a WHOLE lot more people to attempt to hit the owner's wallets.

Edit: Wanted to add also, that I was wrong, it was their charitable funding organization that was giving to these groups, not the owners themselves, but also they stopped donating to those groups as of July 2012. So we're still punishing them 6 years later, I guess.

That article sounds like some of the sermons in church that I hate, just from the opposite side. How about we don't tell LGBTQ people that they don't love themselves based on where they eat. Emotional manipulation is shameful when either side does it.

The Supreme Court legalized gay marriage; nothing Chick fil-A could do could change that (even if they really, really really wanted to and there's no indication that accomplishing that through chicken sandwich sales is their super-secret goal, anyway).

They still give money to Christian organizations (FCA, Salvation Army, etc.) that hold anti-gay positions, but their advocacy on those issues is best described as limited and not the express purpose of those organizations to begin with.

That said, not going to Chick fil-A is remarkably easy (especially on Sunday) and may be in line with your overall beliefs.

What also needs to be said is that currently Chick fil-A is the fastest growing and one of the most profitable fast food companies in America. Your personal desire to not patronize their establishments will have functionally a zero effect on them, though it may help you sleep better at night (and live longer -I mean, come on it's fried chicken!).

Last point: personally boycotting a company is absolutely worthless if you don't make the company aware of why you are boycotting it. If you choose to not eat at Chick fil-A or any other business TELL THEM WHY.

These people spent money to make sure I never get married, so I don’t eat at their restaurants. That’s it. It’s personal. I’m not convinced I’m actually hurting their sales. I just can’t eat there in good conscience. If I was the son of one of these Chik Fil A executives I’d be fucking homeless at 16. I hate them.

But your money is funding anti-lgbt organizations?
Money talks more than your beliefs. If you really believe something, then you put your money where your mouth is. If you think it's wrong to kill dogs for fun, it doesnt make sense to give money to a guy who you know will use it to fund his "kill dogs for fun" club where they literally kill dogs for fun. You cant do both without being a massive hypocrite.

What’s wrong with Chick-fil-A not supporting gay marriage? (I believe that LGBT people have as many rights as any other person, so I refuse to call it ‘gay rights.’ It discredits true civil rights struggles like slavery, segregation, and women’s suffrage.) That’s perfectly fine to me. Let them do with their money as they want to. Being Christian, they believe the Bible 100%, and the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11:

“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men [talking about homosexuals, and in the Greek was referring to both passive and active homosexuality] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

So, that’s just what Chick-fil-A believes. Because they believe that, they would be inclined to give money to Christian organizations that would help people who struggle with this problem, and I don’t see anything wrong with that. They probably, like me, want to see them saved from their sins and not go into eternal punishment. It’s actually a very loving thing to do, giving your own money to help people who struggle with homosexuality. Anyways, when a homosexual puts their hope in Jesus for salvation, they will turn away from their homosexuality and not even WANT to do it anymore, because God had regenerated them, and gave them new desires. I do not believe that there is such thing as a homosexual Christian, because the Bible does not teach that. Really, everyone is on their way to hell for having sinned against God, including the pre-salvation Christian. But God, being merciful on people, decided to save a few for himself. He forgave them, and they will get to be in heaven forever with God. So I hope that people will start trusting in God alone for their salvation. You don’t earn it by your good outweighing your bad, or for never doing any ‘really bad’ sins. The only way is through Jesus Christ.

There is no super natural. This isn't Hogwarts. I'm sorry to inform you that the world is exactly as devoid of magical creatures and god(s) as it always has been.

It's cool that you believe in magical being that care a a lot about how humans have sex, and normally I wouldn't care, but when you start trying to pass laws to compel people to live in a way that comforms to what a magical creature told you, it kind of becomes everyone's problem. We are cool with not being saved from your magical diety from your magical diety's bad place, assuming your version of belief includes one of those.

Thankfully, I'm happy to be moral even without fear of a magic evil guy. I avoid Chick-fil-A because they give money to people that seek to use force to spread their magic guy's feelings on human sex. It's fine if others don't give a shit, but I personally won't help (even a little) crappy people who hurt others because they think a magic guy has some very specific rules on how humans can have sex.

My gay best friend's stance on Chick-fil-a's religious views: "Bitch please, who gives a fuck, their sandwiches are delicious."
He now makes a point to act over-the-top flamboyant if he ever happens to eat there.

Trying to have people accept you as part of every day life, but still wanting a LGBTQ+ community is a bit backwards. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Edit: that is where the straight pride meme came from, the ridiculousness of straight pride just proves how ridiculous gay Pride is. So what if you are gay, big deal. Or do you require an opposition to feel valid online?